WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC. v. ANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Discusses balancing freedom of speech with the administration of justice and contempt of court principles.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 656
Decision Date: 09-05-2025
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India, 1949; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Information Technology Act, 2000; General Principles of Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment refers to Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Order X Rule 2, and Order XI read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These provisions were invoked by the respondent in the suit seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the appellant for alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 20.08.2024. The judgment also mentions Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the said Code, under which the appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court for setting aside the order dated 20.08.2024.
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment extensively discusses Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It examines whether the direction to take down pages on the appellant's platform violates this right. The judgment also refers to Article 19(2), which enumerates reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. It discusses whether a postponement order constitutes a restriction on Article 19(1)(a) and whether such restriction is saved under Article 19(2). The judgment further mentions Article 21, highlighting the right to access justice and the right to live with dignity, emphasizing that freedom of expression is essential for a dignified life.
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: The judgment refers to Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines criminal contempt. The judgment discusses whether the comments and discussions on the appellant's platform amount to criminal contempt, particularly whether they scandalize or tend to scandalize the court, prejudice or interfere with judicial proceedings, or obstruct the administration of justice.
- Information Technology Act, 2000: The judgment mentions Section 2(1)(w) read with Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The appellant contends that it is an intermediary providing only technical infrastructure and is therefore not liable for third-party information. However, the court declines to examine this aspect, as it may have a bearing on the pending suit.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment extensively discusses the principle of 'sub judice' and its implications for freedom of speech and expression. It refers to the Constitution Bench decision in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, which provides for an order for postponement of publication in the event of violation of the sub judice principle. The judgment also discusses the principle of open justice and the importance of public scrutiny of judicial proceedings. It emphasizes the need to balance freedom of speech and expression with the administration of justice and the right to a fair trial. It also discusses the concept of preventive injunctions against the press and the test of present and imminent danger.
🔒 For Members Only